Mookie4ever wrote:You two amuse me like Koko B. Ware amused Andre the Giant, like the Philly secondary amused Larry Fitzgerald, like the Bruins amuse the Canadiens.

The Bruins are way better than the Canadiens. They've beaten them 3 times this year, I believe, including once last week.

You make a post like this:

mweir145 wrote:It will be Baltimore and Philly in the Super Bowl. And I don't think the Eagles will have any problem at all with Arizona.

and still you chirp?

What is it in your chemical make up that requires you to come back for more? Please sign your donor card so that when the day comes (and it will) that you chirp at the wrong guy in a bar, science can open up your head to find out what causes this malignant case of Darcy Tucker that you have.

wrt the Bruins/Canadiens - the Habs have won 24 Stanley Cups - that's more than a quarter of all of the Stanley Cups ever won. The Bruins have won 5. So they are ok right now. In truth they are an abysmal franchise. In the last nine seasons they have either not made the playoffs or have been eliminated by the Habs (except for 03 when the Devils had the honour). The Bruins have not been to the finals since 1990 and have not won since 1972 - the Habs have won 7 Cups since then. The Habs are the superior franchise, always have been. The Habs are the class of the NHL, always have been.

So yeah, right now the Bruins are ahead of the Habs in the standings but pointing that out is like Demps crowing about defending a pass to Fitz while they are replaying him getting burned for a TD on the jumbotron.

I tried to watch the Wizard of Oz last week against my will and still think it is an awful movie. 35 years old and I've never been able to sit through that entire movie including this time. Awful movie, very boring, and gets way too much credit. 2/10.

My football prognosticating skills (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with the fact that the Bruins have owned the Canadiens this year, and will continue to do so as far as I can tell.

What is it in your chemical make up that requires you to come back for more? Please sign your donor card so that when the day comes (and it will) that you chirp at the wrong guy in a bar, science can open up your head to find out what causes this malignant case of Darcy Tucker that you have.

I think I'll be fine Mookie, I'm much bigger than Darcy Tucker.

wrt the Bruins/Canadiens - the Habs have won 24 Stanley Cups - that's more than a quarter of all of the Stanley Cups ever won. The Bruins have won 5. So they are ok right now. In truth they are an abysmal franchise. In the last nine seasons they have either not made the playoffs or have been eliminated by the Habs (except for 03 when the Devils had the honour). The Bruins have not been to the finals since 1990 and have not won since 1972 - the Habs have won 7 Cups since then. The Habs are the superior franchise, always have been. The Habs are the class of the NHL, always have been.

So your team has a pretty good history, just like the Leafs. Sounds like the kind of argument Yankees fans are making to Sox fans right now. Weak.

I can't stand the majority of movies that I have seen that were made in the last 10 years.Nowadays they can't cast appropriate villains and good guys properly, they can't tell a story properly, and a lot of films are just special effects extravaganzas, which is about exciting to me as watching paint dry (which also means you've seen 3/4s of the movie in the previews/ads).

My biggest pet peeve would probably be casting, I hate when the good guy is some no-charisma loser that I don't care about, or the villain is about as threatening as a wet newspaper.

My top 5, I mean 7:

#1 Dirty Harry (a must see for all red-blooded males)

and then a mixture of

GoldfingerThe Good The Bad And The UglyOnce Were WarriorsThe Spy Who Loved MeMagnum ForceThe Enforcer

My problem with the AFI lists is that they're preferential towards the older movies. 39 of the movies in the top 50 were made before 1970. I'm sure Intolerance was a good movie for its time, but I have a hard time believing a 1916 silent film is more enjoyable than 50 of the other millions of movies out there that have dialogue.

On the other hand, IMDB's list is too biased towards the newest movies. Does anyone have a good list that falls somewhere in the middle? I think it would be interesting to try and watch all the top 25 or 50 movies that I've never seen.

Yes Ebert's books, which are really great reads for movie buffs IMHO. Unfortunately I don't think much of them is published online. He does a great job of respecting movie history without biasing against the newer films. He also has great essays on why some of the films he rates great for historical reasons no longer work for modern audiences (like the Maltese Falcon).

Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey

Amazinz wrote:Yes Ebert's books, which are really great reads for movie buffs IMHO. Unfortunately I don't think much of them is published online. He does a great job of respecting movie history without biasing against the newer films. He also has great essays on why some of the films he rates great for historical reasons no longer work for modern audiences (like the Maltese Falcon).